Update: SCROTUS has ruled in favor of fantasy America.
In a Steve Sailer comment thread to a post about Tim Hunt, (the Nobel Prize winning scientist who made the reasonable observation that women scientists are emotionally fragile and can’t take criticism), commenter Ozymandias, responding to some female commenter demonstrating women’s ability to take things personally, wrote,
Unfortunately, what many women consider to be friendship is little more than them cultivating sexual attraction in men they have no interest in, so that they can harvest ego strokes. That’s why any man worth his salt knows the number one rule: never take advice about women from women.
Common sensible and often true, even if women and their beta white knight lackeys don’t like to hear it. The seminal post on when and how men and women can be friends is here. It’s the only thing you need to read on the topic that bears any resemblance to reality as it is for most normal human beings.
Steve, in all his down-home, around-the-way, congenially nerdy Steve-ness, responded to Ozymandias,
Guys, listen to your mother, grandmother, aunts, and sisters about women.
*Godzilla face palm*
Your grandmother… maybe, if she’s at least 90 years old, born well before the post-America funny farm opened its doors. Your mother, aunts, and sisters? No. Women not only give wrong advice to men about how to seduce them, they usually give advice 180 DEGREES removed from what actually works! This is a bug in woman code that men must accept and work around.
The person a man should listen to for advice about women is another man who has both a track record bedding and loving beautiful women and has the self-awareness and mental acuity to know what it is about men like himself that women love and to effectively communicate his knowledge.
The Chateau has been a destination for Crimson Pill pilgrims a long time, yet confusion about the functioning of the sexual market continues bedeviling a fair number of click-by readers. And not just at CH, but at other ostensibly Realtalk outposts. A recent example of this entrenched ignorance comes from a commenter at Alpha Game, who is under the impression that a woman’s looks are *less* important to marriage-minded men than to fling-favoring men.
It is probably a bit true that men will make some trade offs in favor of intelligence and other factors against looks in a long term partner relative to a short term one.
But that would be like choosing hot but crazy for a weekend but putting for a bit less hot but sane for a wife.
Of course looks are less important in a wife than in a one night stand. But only in a holistic sense. You don’t really care if a one night stand can read or count past 10 without taking her shoes off. You probably would care the mother of your children can.
“Of course” looks are less important in a wife? Da’Fuc? I don’t know how one could hold this opinion when the real world evidence points in the complete opposite direction. Take a tally of all your married male friends. If you’ve been friends a while, you’ll be able to compare their ex-girlfriends to their current wives. I bet nine out of ten of them have wives considerably hotter than the average of their ex-girlfriends.
The reason why this is so is simple: When a man is seeking to settle down with a lifelong lover and mother of his future children, he wants the BEST DEAL HE CAN GET. If he plans to invest everything in one woman, you bet he’ll make sure he’s getting good return on investment.
It’s similar to buying perishable goods versus durable goods. Toilet paper? Yeah, you don’t want it tearing apart in your ass forest, but you won’t care much about the advantages of 10-ply over 9-ply. You’ll buy a good value TP, a brand that’ll do the job but won’t cost more than a decent cheesesteak.
But a more durable good, like a car? You will care about every detail of that purchase — looks, power, efficiency, reliability… “leg” room. You’ll spend a lot more time mulling over your auto options than you will your TP options.
It goes the same with women. A one night stand or a short fling? Sure, you want the hottest girl you can get, but you’ll make sacrifices if she’s good to go. Maybe you allow yourself to tolerate a one point beauty deduction for a two point increase in sexual availability.
But a potential wife… ah, that’s serious business. Now you definitely want the whole package — beauty, youth, femininity, dependability, fidelity, and smarts that are in the ballpark of your own intelligence. Emphasis on beauty and youth.
Christ, people, use your heads. Do you really think the typical man would be LESS concerned about the looks of a woman he’ll be staring at for YEARS?!
Oh, but you know a man who married poorly. Yes, those men exist… they’re called betas with no options. Men with options are VERY discerning about the women they will bless with their full devotion. You can bet that uglier women, fatter women, sluttier women, and crazier single moms have as much, and likely more, trouble finding a marriage-minded man who isn’t a total loser, as charmless beta males with nothing to offer but their wallets and sympathy hugs have finding a merger-minded girl who just wants to have fun.
Another one of those UGH THE RIGHT WING outrage articles dropped in the CH combox. Every time I permit myself to wade through a frothy feminist menstruation, I can’t help but get the feeling the implied bogeyman in these articles is none other than yours truly. But they never come at CH directly, even though I’m certain they have stopped by here to get a taste of my meaty instruction. I wonder why they’re so reticent…
Anyhow, this particular article is worth flaying scalp to sole because it’s written in that quintessential sophistic shitlib style, sounding superficially plausible but full of moving goalposts. straw men, evasions, and red herrings. It will be my pleasure to detox this cunt’s id box.
The Right-Wing War on Lena Dunham
Author: Amy Zimmerman
The right-wingers obsessively document and chastise her every move.
…unlike the lefty feminists who obsessively document and chastise the Realtalkers shitting on their icons.
Why are conservatives so threatened by a 29-year-old TV showrunner and author?
“Threatened by” is shitlib smoke and mirrors for “disgusted by”, a classic, and by now ineffectual, leftoid reframe. Dunham despisers, aka normal well-adjusted people, aren’t threatened by her any more than they’re threatened by a steaming wet pile of dog shit they almost stepped in. But they’re still gonna make a face and demand that the dog owner clean up the mess.
But isn’t this a major mental block with leftoids, always confusing disgust for fear? Their grasp of basic human emotions isn’t very… nuanced.
In honor of Memorial Day, Lena Dunham Instagrammed herself in a lacy bra and panty set, and captioned the sultry snap
The only thing snapping in that photo is Dunham’s bra strap, and not for the right reason. You can tell a feminist coven is about to begin their occult clitual when one of them salutes the “sultriness” of the homeliest skank in the group.
Dunham clearly presents her exhibitionism as a celebration of personal and political freedoms
Clearly a strained defense of mundane attention whoring.
but certain fringe elements of the right-wing media have taken the peaceful photo
“Peaceful photo”. What a weird turn of phrase. Is she celebrating in her duties as a State Department liaison a historic accord between Israel and Palestine? Yet again, we see the dullard feminist, utterly lacking in self-awareness, contradict herself within the span of two sentences. Is Dunham in peaceful repose, or is she stridently celebrating her personal and political freedoms?
as further evidence of Dunham’s personal war on male retinas, Republican values, and the American Dream.
Dunham is ugly, so, yeah, “male retinas” will suffer the sight of her, especially since she loves shoving her near-naked ugliness in everyone’s faces. And then acting all aghast when men sensibly recoil at her misshapen figure.
As you read, you’ll start to notice the aversion feminists have to using the word “men”.
The friendly folks over at Breitbart even took it upon themselves to share the photo on Facebook along with a PSA: “DISCLAIMER: Breitbart News is not responsible for any emotional, spiritual, or psychological damage that might occur as a result of viewing this article.” Because trigger warnings are a liberal tool used to infantilize and over-coddle—unless they’re giving big, strong men ample warning that the nude woman they’re about to ogle and objectify is not a piece of eye candy constructed exclusively out of the world’s most physically arousing, dude-approved lady parts.
Amy Zimmerman agrees with horrible right wing males that some women are more physically arousing than others. Amy, I am deeply… deeply… triggered. Warm up the breaking wheel!
While hating on Lena Dunham is, at this point, an odd national pastime, conservative Dunham demonization is particularly widespread and cruel.
Cruel to be kind… to impressionable younger women who might be tempted to follow Dunham’s path to premature spinsterhood. Dunham could always stifle her exhibitionist urges, remove herself from the internet, and lead a reasonably private life like most women do, if she doesn’t like the negative attention.
It’s also strange—for all the fuss Breitbart & Co. made about Lena in her lingerie, you would think Instagram had published a picture of Obama’s REAL birth certificate.
We’ve got a snarklord here. So edgy, so gotcha!
But the far right has been picking on Lena Dunham her entire career, for various slights ranging from her insistence on sharing her personal narrative to her insistence on not walking around in a potato sack with a paper bag over her head.
This is her leftoid straw man. “Lena Dunham doesn’t wear a paper bag over her head, and this infuriates RIGHT WINGERS.” Of course, Dunham sans paper bag isn’t the problem for Dunham haters; it’s Dunham pinching a loaf granny panties bunched around her cankles; Dunham flaunting her undulating fat rolls on everything but a Wheaties box; Dunham sharing the narratives of her endless feminist cunt lies, her sexual perversions, and her antagonism toward normal male sexuality. It’s all that, and her grating, sanctimonious shitlib personality hitched to her bulbous fat man physique, that inspires her enemies.
Not that a potato sack and paper bag wouldn’t be an improvement.
In 2012, Dunham appeared in an Obama campaign ad about her “first time” voting for the Democratic nominee. In the ad, Dunham quipped, “You want to do it with a great guy…somebody who really cares about and understands women.”
Like her gay boyfriend.
Republicans were shocked and irate
FUCK YOU DAD
both by Dunham’s political affiliations as well as her insinuation that she knew what sex was.
No, I think pretty much everyone knew Dunham was an empty-headed leftoid from the get-go. And obviously the consternation of the Core wasn’t directed at her familiarity with sex, but at her insinuation that President Butt Naked would actually be interested in sex with a woman.
Imagine the backlash when this “over-sexed starlet” actually started to use her celebrity to campaign on behalf of Planned Parenthood, in keeping with her pro-choice beliefs.
Her mother disappointed the world by letting Xenomorph Dunham burst past the third trimester deadline.
While Dunham’s ideological deviances from the conservative value system were well-documented from the start
So were Rethuglicans shocked and irate by Dunham’s political affiliations, or were Dunham’s ideological deviances well-documented from the start? Surprisingly, it took four sentences this time before Amy Zimmerman, Feminist Esq., contradicted herself. Progress!
they hardly justify the ensuing right-wing witch hunt.
Criticism is not a witch hunt, dingbat. Now for examples of modern inquisitions suited to the witch hunt metaphor, check out the latest fashion trend among your SJW ilk for getting people fired for crimethinks against humanity.
The outcry surrounding Dunham’s 2014 memoir Not That Kind of Girl illustrates some of these fringe conservatives’ cruelest tactics.
So fringe, she had to compose a passionate, lengthy comeback.
In the memoir, Dunham details a sexual encounter she had as a college student, which she now identifies as an assault.
“Dunham details”. “she now identifies”. “assault”.
Mind-blowing journalistic standards by Mz Zimmerman. So clarifying. For the record, Dunham completely made up her rape story. That is, it was a lie. A lie… meaning the opposite of the truth. She nearly fucked over an innocent man’s life to feed her insatiable, egomaniacal appetite for attention, and to suture whatever cunt-shaped ego wound bleeds out her sense of self-worth.
She later explained her reasoning for going public with the story, citing the bravery of other survivors who have spoken out and asserting, “I don’t believe any of us who have been raped and/or assaulted are to blame.”
She explained her reasoning for going public with her big lie, so that makes everything A-Ok. A good lawyer might make the defense work for a murderer. “Ladies and trannies of the jury, my client is innocent! He explained his reasoning for going public with his story about blowing a man’s head off with a shotgun, and cited the bravery of other killers who have spoken out as victims of a system prejudiced against the hot-tempered.”
Does it sometimes feel like America has entered a parallel universe where all the laws of logic and coherent argument have been turned upside down? Forgive me, I’ll try to explain this without using the word “logic”, which is clearly alienating to many women.
Does it sometimes feel like America has entered a parallel universe where babbling nonsense has substituted for any kind of remotely human-like communication?
Although the number of men and women who have been bold enough to challenge the patriarchal and silencing culture surrounding sexual assault does appear to be rising, the far right never fears.
Define patriarchal. Define silencing culture. Points will be deducted for use of academese poopytalk and tautology. Whatever “silencing culture” exists, it obviously sucks at its job, because Dunham’s gums haven’t stopped flapping. And her advocates sure aren’t shutting up about her.
Got a troublemaking young woman using her visibility to encourage empowerment?
Got an emotionally broken, sociopathic liar using her equally broken fan base of urban millennial bitterbitches and their manlet lapdogs to encourage more lying?
Just dim the lights, put Fox News on mute, and blast the greatest hits: victim blaming, reputation trashing, and an insistence on false rape accusations.
Two points: Dunham actually made a false rape accusation and therefore trashed her own reputation, and Amy Zimmerman writes like an idiot.
Keep playing these classics on loop and eventually someone will have to issue a statement!
Damaged fatties just wanna be free to smear, libel, and slander men without consequence.
In Lena Dunham’s case, the conservative reckoning was perpetrated by
Translation: She was called out on her lying.
Of course, if Dunham hadn’t insisted on being raped by a Republican (and telling the world about it), the conservative right might have been a little less ardent about insisting that she had made the whole thing up.
Amy Zimmerman agrees with Rethuglicans that Lena Dunham made the whole thing up.
Naturally, they would protect a perceived member of their own tribe by attacking her story—she was practically asking for it!
In the National Review, Kevin D. Williamson published a now-infamous review that culled two passages from Dunham’s memoir, asserting that they were proof that Dunham molested her younger sister. Dunham took to Twitter to offer a number of choice replies, including, “I told a story about being a weird 7 year old. I bet you have some too, old men, that I’d rather not hear.”
“weird 7 year old” = “i shoved stuff up my sister’s vagina”. You know, just the sort of weird thing all 7 year olds do. But hey, it’s a choice reply, so Dunham wins.
While sexual assault and child abuse are two thorny, nuanced issues,
Like rape is a thorny, nuanced issue, right, Amy?
the conservative vendetta against Lena Dunham is as uncomplicated as it is undeniable.
Deep. Profound. I read in awe as insight after insight illuminates my world.
More troubling is the manner in which she is so utterly dismissed, an ignorant misreading that’s got everything to do with Dunham’s political views and, more importantly, her gender.
And her vapidity, crassness, banality, and penchant for lying about rapes that never happened.
Lena Dunham was not accepted as a survivor in the same way that so many young women aren’t.
Survivor of what? Diabetic shock? Herpes Simplex 1, 2, and 50? Self-empowered public embarrassment? A malicious fantasy rape concocted in her melonhead? Her dignity?
Similarly, her tales of sexual exploration could never be read as such by a conservative culture that actively denies the sexuality of young women in favor of their sexualization.
Shitlib semantics. I’ve red this line three times and I still can’t make sense of it. Deny women’s sexuality while approving their sexualization? Every word is unintelligible and unfalsifiable in context.
To these right-wing critics, Lena Dunham’s every-woman sexuality
“every-woman sexuality”. :lol: How many women get a thrill from pummeling viewing audiences of them taking a dump, or waddling around the kitchen naked, pretending their carb-fueled gunts are brimming with the gift of new life?
isn’t just disgusting, it’s downright threatening
There’s that assertion against all the available evidence. Amy, toots, no man is “threatened” by the Dumpham Pork Roll, unless he happens to be one of those unfortunate men about to get anally rammed by the dildo she used on her sister. Precision in language, dearie. Muslim terrorists are threatening. Baltimore wildings are threatening. Lena Dunham’s impersonation of a shawarma spit is just revolting.
According to conservatives,
According to normal, psychologically sound people,
Lena Dunham isn’t hot enough for Vogue,
and she isn’t even hot enough for her own Instagram account.
She’s a liar, a molester, and an all-around vulgar chick.
From challenging standards of beauty
to acknowledging her sex life
Why does Dumpham need to publicly acknowledge her sex life? Is she afraid people will think she’s a nun?
from standing up for survivors
of public exposure of their false rape accusations.
to speaking out against victim blaming
Why are you blaming conservatives for being victimized by Dunham’s exhibitionism and celebration of child incest, Amy?
Lena Dunham isn’t afraid of much.
Oh, I think her self-imposed disgrace is starting to get to her.
Meanwhile radical right-wingers
Paging 1995, Amy. “Radical right wingers” is no longer the height of edgy labeling.
when faced with change in the form of a lady who talks too much and wears too little
I thought Lena was being silenced by a silencing culture?
are almost comically frightened.
You don’t sound like you’re laughing, Amy.
Maybe they’re afraid that their wives and daughters will join the revolt, or maybe they’re just really not attracted to empowered women.
Or maybe… just maybe!… Dumpham is the antithesis of an attractive, feminine woman that appeals to the vast majority of men.
Whatever the reason, Lena Dunham has a message for the conservatives who have endlessly mocked and maligned her: I probably wouldn’t fuck you either.
Is The Daily Beast the bottom of the journolister barrel? That was some of the worst-written, incoherent, callow garbage I’ve read coming out of fevered feminist fantasyland in a while. And that’s saying something.
The propaganda arms in charge of disseminating Narrative agitprop are falling prey to a bad combination of incompetence and self-admiration. I wonder how much lower media organs will debase themselves before their undying shame compels radical change in their occupation? Will that shame ever come, or will they have to be forced off the plantation for sins against their ethical code of conduct?
Lena Dunham — or as Vox Day calls her, the Dunham Horror — is back in the news, attention whoring on social media in her new
lingerie fat folds hammock. (WARNING: You are about to see what cannot be unseen. The faint of heart should look away now.)
Until Lena, never in the history of womankind has an attention whore been less aware of the nature of the attention she receives, or of the mismatch between what she offers and the kind of attention she demands for her offerings.
Which manboob does Lena’s nottie bod most resemble?
I’ll have to go with “sidewinders”.
Lena’s personal philosophy and her behaviors which manifest from her beliefs are a cancer on the world. A grotesquerie like her should spend less time flaunting her repulsive ugliness on the internet and more time in the gym and away from the grease trucks kicking her body into a reasonably feminine shape that she can then proudly save for the pleasure of her gay husband in the privacy of their home. Growing out her hair so she looks less like David Fatrelle would help, too.
But, she will never do this. Find a husband, that is.
But even with their visible admiration for one another, this pair has no plans to say “I Do” anytime soon. It’s not that they aren’t ready. They just wish everyone [ed: gays] would be given the same opportunity in all 50 states.
This post is cruel. I’m in a giving mood, so I’ll leave youze guys with some oculation material.
CH answered this post title’s question already in the seminal “Dating Market Value for Women” at-home quiz, and in this post defining the qualifications of the “alpha female”, but feminists and male feminists continue to insist against the bleedingly obvious real world evidence that men desire smarts in women over and above all other mate value considerations. For instance, the latest garbage study purporting a strong male desire for female IQ is about as flawed as a self-report sex survey can get.
Instead of writing a draining exegesis on why smarts don’t matter much to women’s romantic fortunes —
executive summary: a woman’s IQ has little impact on her short- OR long-term desirability to men unless she’s beyond the comfort zone of intelligence compatibility with the man she’s dating; i.e. around 15 or more IQ points above or below the man’s IQ
— I’ll just reprint a Telegraph commenter’s witty response on the topic.
awesome research – it validates the view that porn has no future on the internet
So much feminist-friendly “””research””” has upon later inspection turned out to traffic in horribly flawed premises and methodology that it’s a good bet to prejudice any social science study issuing from an Anglo university with at least one Scandinavian- or Eskimo-sounding female name in the author list as worthless.
Commenter Arbiter does the hard work debunking this feminist study that I wasn’t willing to do.
All right, let’s take apart the Telegraph article:
1. Journalist Sarah Knapton has talked to a Professor David Bainbridge. So you would expect some strong scientific research to back up his claim, right? No. “Surveys have shown time and time again that this is the first thing that men look for.” You don’t even get to see the surveys. Nor do you get any mention of the fact that what people say in a survey doesn’t mean it’s true, especially not in a leftist climate that pressures them to ignore nature.
2. Bainbridge sets up a strawman to attack: it’s “large breasts and long legs” vs. intelligence. This is even in the title. He knocks large knockers by saying it’s not big breasts men want but symmetrical breasts, and he knocks long legs by saying it is straight legs men want, not long ones.
Ergo, men value intelligence instead of looks! Right? If you ignore the little fact that he just mentioned physical traits that men desire: symmetrical breasts and legs that are not crooked.
Far down in the article we also get this: “However men do like women to be curvaceous with voluptuous thighs and bottoms, and a waist that is much slimmer than their hips..” So the “men really look for intelligence, not beauty” theme that the article starts with is nonsense, even by the writer’s own admission. But this comes far down in the story.
3. The real “proof” to grab people’s attention is George Clooney. The article begins with a picture of him and Lebanese wifey Amal Alamuddin. Sarah Knapton writes under the picture: “Despite dating a string of attractive women George Clooney settled down with human rights barrister Amal Alamuddin”. They are mentioned again farther down in the article, and Alamuddin’s picture appears again.
No longer do you need to study thousands of people, you only need to look at one person’s choice. If you are the science editor at The Telegraph.
But not even this one example proves anything: Alamuddin doesn’t look bad for her age. She also no doubt shares Clooney’s socialist preferences, and his anti-White ideology served well by marrying a non-White. So looks, check, and compatible personalities, check. Furthermore, that she is a “human rights barrister” doesn’t mean she would be brimming with intelligence for Clooney to lust for. Probably she just has enough intelligence to be close to him on the scale.
Alamuddin is one of the worst exhibits the feminists could use to buttress their “men love SMRT women!” psychological projection. She’s hotter than 90% of women her age. And, lest the fact escape anyone, she’s also 17? years younger than Clooney.
The Thirst is a Red Pillian term for sex-starved beta and omega males who fawn, notably online, over LSMV (low sexual market value) women, artificially inflating the self-perceived price of those women.
The enfant realtalkers who decry The Thirst on grounds of making their romantic journeys more perilous consider themselves enlightened to the bitter realities of the sexual marketplace. As a working theory for how the sexes interact sociosexually, the notion of The Thirst is more right than wrong. Women are, reproductively, the more valuable sex (during their youthful primes), and this inherent, biologically grounded sex value skew translates into all sorts of organic, cognitively discordant social phenomena, such as the factual observation that the average early 20s girl receives a lot more unwarranted sexual attention than the average man receives warranted sexual attention of any age.
Upon closer inspection, though, The Thirst falls short of a truly 360º panoramic view of the sexual market. I’ll explain its shortcomings as a Guide For The Good Life, and why I’ve come to see loudmouthed publicists for the SMV-bending beaver magic of The Thirst as little different than their distaff doppelgängers, the “Dick is abundant and low value” feminist crank trolls.
Why a Theory of The Thirst is flawed
1. Low value women don’t get sex (or, especially, love) as easily as prettier women.
Aggro MGTOWs find this hard to believe, but it’s true. Real life, and studies, clearly show that the uglier, older, and/or fatter the woman, the more time she’s gonna spend in involuntary celibacy purgatory. Granted, a LSMV woman won’t serve quite as long an incel sentence as a LSMV man, but she will serve some time before a sufficiently LSMV dick falls in her lap pretending to love her. If she’s lucky.
Have you ever noticed that one girl in your social group who has a history of showing up to parties or happy hours alone? She’s often representative of one of two kinds of girls: The sexy slutty ingenue who plays the field (usually by free choice that she comes to regret later), and the homely girl everyone feels sorry for. Why do we feel sorry for the latter and not the former? Because we know, in our subconscious moral calculus, that the homely girl is sexually isolated through no fault of her own. Unless she’s fat. In which case, we feel pity, which is a form of contempt.
2. Women don’t value sexual attention as much as men value it.
What happens when you expect to receive a certain type of social reward? You value that social reward less when, predictably, you get it.
So it goes with women, even the less attractive ones. Spreading their legs for a horndog who won’t call them the next day is no accomplishment for most women with working ovaries. (Say it with me: Eggs are expensive, sperm is cheap.) Despite the phony crowing of pump&dumped bitterbitches, sex is simply not something that, by itself, pumps women full of pride and happiness like sexual conquest does men. Men who claim otherwise are projecting their own desire for sexual attention onto women. (Projection… it’s not just a woman thing!)
So The Thirst is not blowing up the egos of fat/ugly chicks as much as its resentful advocates fervently believe.
Yes, a constant barrage of online flattery, no matter the quality of the sources or the wit of the pitch, will, in time and for short duration bursts, play head games with fug girls who get zero likewise attention offline. Yes, some of these fugs may temporarily come to perceive themselves, unreasonably, as more attractive to high value
avatars men than they are in fleshy reality. But they will quickly be disabused of their false pride the second they step out the door and once again notice all the men walking past them as if they were invisible. So whatever ego-boosting ASCII effect The Thirst exerts on a fug, it evaporates the moment she enters the field where the plunger splits the ho.
3. Women instinctively know online male flattery is a low investment, mass targeting strategy worth absolutely nothing.
When a fatty gets propositioned by the 200th random pussy solicitor channeling Lord Byron… you dtf?… you really think she takes that sexual come-on to the id bank as a deposit put toward her accumulating romantic worth account?
Yeah, sure, if cornered by a sadistic interlocutor, she’ll lie and brag about all the love thrown her way on Tinder, but in the quiet of her thoughts she’ll know the flattery is as empty as her ice cream bucket.
4. Sexual attention is worse than being ignored when it’s from depressingly low value men.
If The Thirst was such an all-powerful force for NB1 ego inflation, why do the unattractive girls who receive cat calls, on- or offline, from the dregs of malehood feel worse for the flattery?
As a man about town, you likely know the same feeling. Dressed to the nines, confidence sky high, charm dialed in, prêt-a-poon slay, a chubby plain girl approaches you and smiles, introducing herself as someone very interested in getting to know you. All at once, the air is let out of your scrotal balloon. The weaker sort of men who experience this unfortunate courtship stillbirth spend the rest of the night beating themselves up. “Are these the only kinds of girls I can ever get?? Fuck, here I am at my best and only the ugly girls come up to me!”
Well, that hideous feeling is the same feeling girls have when miserable wretches come onto them. So what if 1,000 omega males hit on a fatty in chat over the course of a month? It’s still 1,000 omega males, and that makes all the difference.
When you’re ignored by the opposite sex, you can at least mentally masturbate to the hope that you’re attractive to them in their thoughts.
5. Women value commitment, relationships and love, which are much harder to acquire from men than are men’s sexual favors.
The Thirst, as it’s understood by most of the bitterati, applies primarily to sexual desperation; that is, men heaping transparently shallow compliments and favors on women in hopes of sexual reciprocation.
(There is a variant of The Thirst that involves relationship mongering, but this is much rarer among men, the sex for whom getting into relationships is not nearly as difficult as it is for women, nor as desired as getting into panties.)
This is really the biggest flaw in the theory of The Thirst: Thirsty sexual come-ons from horny men are no substitute for the romantic fulfillment of long-term love to women. Women grow up dreaming of their wedding day; they don’t grow up dreaming of all the cock they can squeeze into their hymenically-unsealed snatches.
Women fear insol a lot more than they fear incel. Lesson: If you want to properly shiv a feminist, ask her how long it’s been since a man stayed with her for longer than three months.
6. Women lie.
Finally, one contributing factor for a widely held belief in The Thirst is simply that women lie about their attractiveness to men. In fact, women lie more than men do about all things related to sex and romance. Are you sitting next to that fat chick as she stares at her flickering phone screen? No? Then don’t take her assertion that she gets “tons of attention” from men as the gospel truth.
This balls-deep CH analysis proves that the Red Pill concept of The Thirst is an overblown interpretation of a sexual market reality that, nevertheless, contains some useful truth value as a general map of intersexual relations.
The part of The Thirst that is true:
Women generally do receive more sexual solicitations than do their peer group men.
The parts of The Thirst that are false:
Fat, ugly, or old women can get desirable sexual attention, and convert it into actual sex, any time they want. There is a scourge of desperate beta and omega males banging down the doors of fatties and fugs. Online flattery gives ugly women long-lasting ego boosts. Women appreciate sexual attention as much as men appreciate it. An epidemic of thirsty beta males is making pickup much more difficult for charming players.
Even the true part of The Thirst is subject to circumspection. There is a wild swing in sexual attention skew when we compare women and men at different points on the SMV scale. For instance, an HB9 and a male 9 won’t be as far apart in sexual attention received by the opposite sex as will an HB7 and a male 7. Nor, paradoxically, will a female 1 and a male 1. At the extremes of sexual repulsiveness and sexual attractiveness the male-female difference in ability to incite the opposite sex to romantic exclusion or abandon narrows a bit.
It’s in the middle of the SMV belle curve where we discover that the sex attention skew — The Thirst Ratio — dramatically widens among the mediocre masses. A female 5 will receive, and particularly online where face-to-face rejection isn’t a threat, a lot more manipulative flattery from low value men than a male 5 will receive from low value women. This sex difference could be on the order of 100-to-1, or worse.
The sexual market is intrinsically unfair, so much so that it makes mockery of equalist pretensions. Beta males who are new to the teachings of Game and struggling to find romantic success bemoan this unfairness, but it’s better to accept it as an immutable part of the natural order and do what it takes to leverage the blessings, and attenuate the curses, of that order.
“He’s just not *that* into you.”